EPTAt no point was the guy shot on the ground, like some brilliant people have stated thus far.
Suspect with crowbar killed by police - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING: The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. If you feel the need to post a reaction to the news, post a comment on the youtube video. Don't bring it here. This thread is for a discussion on the topic, and your post better have substance to it. Low content posts will be met with moderator action. Here is a good post by someone with experience in escalation of force training. Read that too. This post might change your opinion of in the incident. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32083 Posts
At no point was the guy shot on the ground, like some brilliant people have stated thus far. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
The article isn't clear if all the shots came from the same officer. On January 25 2012 06:29 bLooD. wrote: Without knowing what happened inside that building what appears the be a restaurant: The guy was trying to attack one officer with his weapon then the police shot him repeatedly. The officers should have used tasers but i can't blame them for shooting. They did, they tased his face... if you don't watch the video at least read the op. | ||
|
bLooD.
Germany470 Posts
The guy was trying to attack one officer with his weapon then the police shot him repeatedly. The officers should have used tasers but i can't blame them for shooting. | ||
|
Syi
United Kingdom42 Posts
| ||
|
WinterNightz
United States111 Posts
This isn't like some police officer killed a grandma who shook her finger at him. This was a thug who would rather fight than surrender when there's already multiple guns trained on him. (but in general, I agree that the officer could have done fine without the second burst of five rounds. but even if he did, I wouldn't expect the suspect to survive. and that would be perfectly ok. The situation wasn't dealt with optimally, but it was dealt with wisely.) On January 25 2012 06:29 bLooD. wrote:The officers should have used tasers but i can't blame them for shooting. They did use tasers, and they were ineffective. | ||
|
Junichi
Germany1056 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:15 micronesia wrote: [...] What people should be making a bigger deal about here is the officer who approached the target to attempt to hit him with a tazer shot... he kinda screwed up there and probably will need his training re-evaluated. He's the one who put the officer with the gun in such a tough spot. I completely agree with your post and want to emphasize this. The officer who got attacked payed no attention for a long time (relative to how quickly he could be attacked), looked down and got way to close! He needs to really think about how he handles stressful situations like these and may need extra training or a job at the desk. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32083 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:28 On_Slaught wrote: Obviously they do. I just rewatched the video and I think the officer was in the right and saw the Tazer... thought it was mace for some reason. If we consider that cops never shoot to wound, then when the "bad guy" turned towards one of the other officers with an obviously dangerous weapon, then his actions were correct imo and according to police policy. There are plenty of advancements happening with non-lethals thankfully. And there's lots of suits and outrage over people being tazed and peppersprayed as well. It's a lose-lose for cops, no matter what they do. | ||
|
Klipsys
United States1533 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote: excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Police are trained to neutralize a threat. In a shooting situation this usually entails shooting at "center mass" in order to deliver the most trauma possible in order to stop the threat. Unfortunately, death is often the result. Police are not trained to "shoot to kill" , they are trained to "stop a threat". I think if you were to ask any officer he or she would most likely respond that they would rather not have to shoot anyone. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
He had to shoot. | ||
|
Cokefreak
Finland8095 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:28 Sgonzo wrote: ^ this is what all the people who agree with the cops actions are missing fromt heir thought process I don't expect a cop to just stand there and get himself killed if he can do something about it. | ||
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
| ||
|
sMi.EternaL
United States162 Posts
And here I thought police are people with at least some training at disarming or have some hand-to-hand skills to deal with situation like this. We train to go one step above the threat level. What does this mean? If someone comes at you with their bare hands, you pepper spray/tazer etc. If someone comes at you with "insert melee weapon here"? You use a firearm. I am very confident in my hand-to-hand abilities, I am very well trained over many years. I've had to use that training on more than one occasion. That being said, your hand-to-hand skills are your fail safe, you never want to put yourself in more danger than you must. There's a quote we teach and live by: If you show up for a fair fight, you are not prepared. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
The guy had it coming. Don't bring a weapon if you don't want to take the chance of being shot. Simple. Did the cop shoot a few too many? Sure. But I won't hold it against him in a situation like this. | ||
|
KryptoStorm
England377 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:23 micronesia wrote: No, it goes as a warning to anyone who attempts to (or very clearly looks like he is attempting to) attack an officer with a deadly weapon after repeated commands to disarm. Yeah, they were HOPING the guy would come at them so they could shoot him! For the record if by 'step out of line' you mean come at my partner with a crowbar, then yes, I will drop you too. He didn't even swing the crowbar....And he was shot 10 times from a metre away..? What I don't get is why don't cops shoot people in the legs? To disable them, instead of the chest/face, to kill them. | ||
|
Akta
447 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:19 Calm wrote: Have to admit I don't really understand what you mean. It wasn't for police but I've literally fired thousands of shots in training to avoid what happened in that vid and I'd like to think training prepares people.I disagree. It's more likely the result of being unprepared. He clearly was trained on what to do, but had no experience in a high-pressure situation. It's not like these things happen every day. Adrenaline messes you up, makes you uncoordinated. That's all it looked like | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10660 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:33 seiferoth10 wrote: So basically, he disobeyed all commands and attacked armed officers. I'm no genius or anything, but if I disobey and attack armed officers I clearly expect to be shot. Couldnt help but LOL at this. But other people dont have the same logic. Sadly.. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:24 DannyJ wrote: If you think taunting and raising a weapon at a cop is just "stepping out of line" nobody wants you to come here. I'm American and I completely agree with him. You hear so many stories about how police in Latin America are criminals, look at our own country. The cops seemingly WANT to use their weapons every chance they get. The guy didn't even swing his weapon before the cop lit him up like a christmas tree. There were at least 2 cops and a police dog there (and if you know anything about American police, that means there were at least 3-4 squad cars). If they couldn't subdue one man with a shovel without the use of deadly force, then they are useless cops. I honestly don't care if the cop's life was threatened. That is a very real consequence of the job, and as a police officer you are expected and trained to be able to think clearly even during a life threatening situation. That cop was obviously trigger happy and unloaded the second he saw a change in pace of the situation. Anyone who thinks this is alright is delusional and it's no wonder law enforcement is so heavily resented here in America. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:28 Sgonzo wrote: ^ this is what all the people who agree with the cops actions are missing fromt heir thought process Eh no... you have watch to many bad cop movies. You don't tackle someone that have a weapon in hand as the first alternative. | ||
|
TritaN
United States406 Posts
In that situation, after less than lethal force was ineffective, the officers only had one clear choice. The only force left to use is lethal force. Now, of course, the question of "did they really need to shoot him half a dozen times?" is certainly valid, but only under the premise of reducing the possibility of bystander injury due to stray bullets. | ||
| ||
